Disproving V for Vendetta.

“Writers tell lies to uncover the truth.” Evey Hammond the female lead of the movie says her father said this to her growing up. This is of course the point of all fiction, to uncover truth about our society, our religion, our government, and most importantly ourselves. She follows it up by saying, “politicians use lies to hide it.”

The story of V is, presumably, meant to be a fiction meant to uncover truth. Unfortunately it is the opposite. While it does uncover many “truths” throughout the tale it furthers the great myth, the great myth of violence and a violent revolution.

It is not hard to see why anti-authoritarians flock to the show. It is fundamentally a story of the lowest of low, a guy who lives in the shadows and is the ultimate outcast rising up and starting a movement that throws down the overly-authoritarian structure above him. It is the ultimate underdog story. The story of how the lowest rose to be the highest, and how all the evil people at the top were not only stopped, but killed. It is a story of ultimate vengeance.

Anyone who has ever felt cheated or tricked or oppressed by an authoritarian structure is bound to start cheering for this man. And who hasn't at one time been hurt by authority? Whether it was a parent falsely accusing you of something your sibling did, or a teacher who went out of their way to make your life miserable. In some way, in some often extremely painful and personal ways, we have all been cheated by “the man” and deep down have some urge to get back.

The character who plays the high chancellor and spews constant anger and irrational hate makes everyone hate him. Everyone watching wants him punished in some way to bring justice. When I learned about Hitler, Stalin, and Ne Win in history the temptation is to think, oh if someone just would have killed them then imagine how many lives would have been saved! Imagine how much better the world would be. It is as if the dictator is the one wholly and completely responsible for the mess. This is of course a lie.

The dictator is just a symbol, a symbol of the character of the people. No one rises to power, except on the backs of other people. If at any moment the Russian people as a whole were like, nope, I am not going to do anything this person says, then Stalin would have been on the streets in a week. V talks about this in his “revolutionary speech.” One of the truly great pieces of writing from modern movies:

And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”

It isn't always “their fault.” Of course those that rise to power are more guilty than we, but if we are singing their victory, praising their name, voting for them or in anyway acknowledging their legitimacy to rule, then we are part of their rise to power, we are to blame.

Government is a creation of language. It only exists in our minds, and only exists because we allow it to. V points out this power of language in his revolutionary speech:

I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?

Just as language is the tool to build government, language is the tool that can destroy it. Notice how he talks about talking. “taking some time out of our daily lives to have a little chat.” “Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.”

Words are used to create meaning, but only to those who are willing to listen do they offer truth. Only those willing to go through rigorous debate, those willing to be challenged, will ever know truth, but whether we are willing to listen to not, words do create meaning.

It is simple to see how this happens in real life. I say something like “I am the king, you must serve me.” This is of course a completely false statement. However, if I get everyone to repeat it, and if I can somehow enforce punishment if anyone says otherwise, then it becomes a maxim. A “truth” that is accepted without any thought. Particularly when it becomes so accepted that if anyone dares to question it they are laughed at and ridiculed and viewed as “crazy” “extreme” “fringe” or a “conspiracy theorist.”

In the relentless repeating of the lie, the lie becomes truth and anyone who doesn't believe it is insane. However deep down we know it to be a lie because it is obvious. How am I fundamentally any different than any one else? What would make me a king on a different moral level? Even to ask these questions is to expose the myth. In an “Emperor's new clothes” fashion, the whole thing crumbles.

Wherever you see this sort of Fight Club oppression you know there is an accepted “truth” that is a lie. The first rule of fight club is you cannot talk about fight club. The first rule of an abusive relationship is you cannot talk about that abusive relationship. The first rule of the family club is you do not talk about the family club. An abusive husband knows he is being an abusive. An abused wife knows she is being abused. To talk about it, is to end it. No abusive husband wants his wife going around the neighborhood saying, “my husband beats me.”

The movie is startling accurate in its portrayal of many aspects of the world, though significantly different than our own. In the movie a member of the media team says, “It is our job to report the news, not to fabricate it, that is the government's job.” How incredibly accurate a description of the mainstream media's relationship to the government. The media simply churns out whatever the most recent press release is from the government and puts some analysis and spin on it and calls it good.

However despite the fact that I love the movie and shows much truth, its ultimate "truth" is indeed a lie.

It propagates the biggest lie of all: that violence is useful. That somehow we can make up for the sins of violence with more violence. That somehow killing those bad guys in power is a great good. “Violence can be used for good.” Is the claim that V makes to Evey.

We want violence to be used of good. We want the bad guys to die, the bad guys to pay for their crimes and for the good guys to win. It jives with our sense of justice. Our sense of right and wrong. But guess what, it doesn't work.

 

Every violent revolution in history from the French to the Russian to the Chinese has inevitelby led to the removal of the bad guys and the replacement with a worse guy. The Russians removed the oppressive Tsar to be replaced with the most murderous man in history, Stalin. The French took down the king and replaced him with Robespierre who killed more than the king ever did. Violent revolutions always fail because it takes an even more violent person to remove a violent one. Violence can not beat violence because it does not take down the lie of the ruler, it enforces it.

As stated already, the government's power does not come from guns, it comes from language. It comes from saying that it is right, from saying that violence is the answer. The way to destroy that is not with violence. If you try to conquer it with violence it is not tearing down the lie, it is enforcing it. It is saying that violence is indeed the way to solve problems. But the way to defeat the government is not to enforce the lie, but to question it.

You want to change the world? A violent uprising is not the way to do it as you will become the beast you are trying to destroy. The revolution happens in your mind. It happens here, right now and then it spreads from one mind to the next. Simply think of statements that we accept as unilaterally, unequivocally true.

Democracy is good. Public schools are good and necessary. Taxation is the foundation of civilization. Anarchy is chaos. Respect for authority is good. Obedience is a virtue.

Are these things really true? Or do we just assume they are because we have said them a million times and it is generally accepted as true? If examined it is not hard to realize the above statements hold about as much water as “I am the king and you should do what I say.”

What truisms do we say, but never live? For example Honesty is a virtue. Yet if a child is honest about his school class and says “My teacher is boring” is he praised or punished? Do we really value honesty? Or do we value obedience? Because you can't have both.

At one moment the police chief is beginning to question the government. He is beginning to realize that maybe he is working for the wrong team. He says to the liutennet: "If our own government was responsible for the deaths of over a hundred thousand people... would you really want to know?" That is the question everyone must ask themselves. To be honest the answer for most people is "no" which is why things continue as they do. Whether we want to know or not, the truth is that since WWII the u.s. military has killed over ten million people. Ten million. That is one hundred thousand... times a hundred. And the body count is much higher. But you can just ignore that. You can go back to your entertainment television and be happy. Or you can begin to ask some hard questions. You can begin to have some conversations that people are desperate for you not to have.

Despite its flaws the movie contains this great line, “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.”

 

Galdiator's Deeper Layer

There are really three aspects to the movie Gladiator, the religious, the political and the familial. The political aspect is interesting, but the familial aspect is really the driver behind the whole story. 

There are two families, that of Marcus Aurelius, and that of Maximus the general. (note: the movie has some historical flaws but for the sake of this review it will be taken has history.)

It starts with Emperor Aurelius overlooking the war, as he has spent 16 of his 20 years as emperor. The movie suggests he was war-like in his early years as emperor but then had an awaking. Of course the fact that he dies at war somewhat flies in the face of this. Furthermore it seems Rome is going to hell in a hand-basket during his tenure. However he did end the gladiator fights (not historically accurate) and wrote some good words down on paper. By empirical reality probably not the best of men, but emotionally we are supposed to identify and respect him in the movie, or at the very least not hate him.

Marcus Aurelius Overlooks the battlefield- a position he was used to.

Interestingly the man we are supposed to hate is Marcus Aurelius’ son, Commodus. This is a difficult task for the movie accomplish. The movie has to somehow make us love the father while hating the son, but deep down we know this cannot be. When Commodus is talking about his “bad” qualities, we know that he did not get them from watching Roman TV shows, he got them from his father. The movie even points Aurelius’ bad parenting out. He says to his daughter, “Let us pretend that you are a loving daughter and I am a good father.” To which his daughter responds, “This is a pleasant fiction, is it not?” More blatantly Aurelius says to Commodus, “Your faults as a son is my failings as a father.” Aurelius was of course away at war for 16 years. How could he be a good father? Or even a father for that matter. He was a sightseer and war monger who occasionally took a break to say hello to some children back at home. The movie attempts to make it appear as if Commodus is a bad egg that randomly hatched out of nowhere but deep down we know this is not true. We know instinctively that Commodus is who he is largely because of his father. It is apparent that Aurelius was gone during much of his children’s lives. He was likely gone during many of the most crucial years.  

This is the story of the movie: that national disasters and wars do not begin on the battlefield, in negotiation rooms, nor in state buildings. Wars begin in living rooms, kitchens, and classrooms. Particularly detrimental are the disastrous homes of the political elite. The horrors that happen in those living rooms are acted out in grand scale with bombs and soldiers. Furthermore the movie shows that not only do wars not begin in the battlefield, they do not end there either. All wars begin and end in the home. The war pulls fathers away and families apart and sews the seeds of further conflict, destruction, and sadness. This cycle is the story of the movie.

After the opening battle sequence that is there largely to draw us in, we are shot into the actual meat of the story, the familial dysfunction. The battle with all of its evils and flaming arrows and dying people are simply the bloody manifestations of the familial dysfunction juxtaposed in the movie just after the battle sequence. To make it more complete the movie should have opened with the familial politics and then gone to the battle scene, but cinematic demands make you come in with a more visual stunning bang (mad props to the special effects crew and all that, the battle scene does have some pretty breath-taking images.).

Of course the war itself makes no rational sense (as always). But wars are not rational, they never are they never were, they are emotional manifestations of familial dysfunction and are not based at all on their supposed political goals. The movie claims that after the Romans fight this final battle against the Germans the whole empire will be safe and at peace. So this was not the first, or last, “War to end all wars.” Every war is the war to end all wars. That is how politicians get people to fight “Just fight this war, and then there will be peace and all your children and grandchildren will be able to live in peace! Do it for your children and future generations! Fight for peace!” And so, people sign up. This is what they said during World War I. The war to end all wars. Fight for peace, so your children can live in peace. Was there peace for their children? No of course not. The children had to fight in the bloodiest conflict in human history, WWII. Politicians have been saying this is “the last war” since before ancient Rome, you think this time it will finally be true? Marcus Aurelius is of course aware of this; shortly after the battle he says “There will always be people to fight.”

Clearly, they did not need to fight this random Germanic tribe. “People need to know when they are conquered,” says one general. It is about being in charge, not actual threats or safety. What were a bunch of hairy men in the mountains really going to do to the Roman Empire? Indeed it makes about as much sense as our wars and military bases throughout the world that do not make us safer, but do give us a superiority complex. Did Rome really need the northern half of Germania to survive? Surely the Roman army could not think they were “helping them out?” Like we so daringly say about our wars in the Middle East, “We are there to help them out.” Say that to the Iraqi who is dead and to all of his family. How much did we “help them out?” Similarly the Germanic tribes who were slaughtered probably did not feel so “helped” by the Roman army.

The opening battle is great cinematography

The worst part about war is that it always lays the seeds for future wars and familial dysfunction.

It is not far into the movie when Commodus kills his father. He does this just after his father tells him that he does not trust him enough to be the next emperor. Commodus murders his father to become emperor. Is this not what his father taught him? Aurelius has “murdered” to maintain the empire, in fact he has sent thousands of young men to their deaths, as well as ordered the deaths of “barbarians.” So though we are supposed to hate Commodus for killing his father, and love Aurelius for his valor in battle, they are the same thing. Commodus is doing exactly what his father has taught him to do his whole life, or at least 16 years of it, to go out and kill anyone who threatens your hold on the empire.

What is more, the physical killing of Aurelius is his son’s retribution for his father’s killing of him. You cannot kill unless you have first been killed inside. Aurelius, through lack of love toward his child, through abandonment as he was off to war, killed his son inside, leading to his own eventual murder.

Most people see the villain and his lust for power as the drive behind the movie, but this is not the case, that is the mere outward manifestation of the abandonment because of the wars and ambitions of his father. This is the tragedy behind the horrors of the movie.

The war, as all wars, is fundamentally a war against families, not against Germanians. The Romans were told they were going to kill Germanians, but they were killing Roman families. Similarly when we go to Iraq or Afghanistan, or wherever else, the war is not against whoever the supposed bad guys are, the war is against American families and children who lose fathers for years or forever and who come back with PTSD and an inability to function in society. The war is caused by dysfunctional families and it then spreads that disease of dysfunction and violence to others. Maximus loved his family and his children. Apparently (as far as the movie showed) he had a good home. Then he had to leave for war, as he says he hasn’t seen his family for “2 years, 264 days and this morning.” His boy was only a few years old. During those crucial years he was left without a father. His family is fundamentally wounded. To make this clear the movie shows the Roman troops crucifying and burning Maximus’ wife and children. This is simply physically doing to his family what the Roman army had already done emotionally. 

No family involved in war can be spared this fate. They lose their father, or get a father severely wounded coming home. Many soldiers and families are able to survive and live well, but others’ lives are almost as that of Maximus, half-awake nightmares. This is shown by the fact that soldiers are more likely to commit suicide and about 20% of those involved in Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD and/or depression.  

Maximus' family who he never sees again in the flesh. Family is the true cost of war.

After the death of Maximus’s family the story line splits. Maximus through some truly strange circumstances is picked up by slavers and becomes a gladiator, while Commodus is in the capitol scheming to eliminate the senate.

Here there are some interesting political discussions. Commodus talks to his sister about the need to get rid of the senate. Commodus is completely unable to negotiate or connect with people. This is seen in the scene at the senate where he simply plays with his sword and ignores the senators, then gets mad at them for nonsensical reasons and walks off in anger. This of course is a manifestation of his inability to connect with his father, but he extends that to everyone. He can’t make real connections or do real negotiations so for this reason he wants totalitarian power. If only there were not people in the way he could do what is right. If he just didn’t have to negotiate. This is also why he basically holds his sister captive. She becomes his “connection” the person he can relate to, even though she is completely scared of him.

She tells Commodus in her attempt to get him to step down from his ambitions, “leave the people their illusions, their traditions.” Isn’t that so fitting to what we see today? Princeton and Northwestern proved that the whole democracy thing is just that, a sham, an illusion, a tradition (at least in the United States). In reality “the people” have no control over what takes place in Washington. We are just like the people in Rome, kept with our “illusions.”

Commodus desperately wants the respect of the people, because he thinks it will fill that gaping hole in his soul where his father should be. He thinks being loved by the people will finally make him feel secure, complete, and not scared of being alone. “What do the people care about?” he yells. His sister suggests they care about the war, about the victory. “They never saw the battles – what do the people care about Germania?” Interesting because it is so true. What do they care about random fighting of people in a distant land they will never see. Yet that is war. It becomes important only because we are told it is. And so we grow to worship it as our defender when it is really all the opposite. “They care about the greatness of Rome.” Says his sister, which really just shows the lack of connection with people. People care about their families, they care about their businesses, they care about their hobbies, they care about their friends. It is these mere abstractions that people put up as important when they are unable to connect to those more important things.

The whole political section is extremely fascinating because it is so relevant to our current political condition, as well as for the fact of its slightly conservative bend which is almost non-existent in Hollywood.  All the politicians are represented, rightfully so, as out of touch, entitled jerks. There is of course an exception: The “good” politician. The existence of a “good” politician is more Hollywood fiction than reality, but I suppose relative to other politicians, some do look good. The good guy is Gracchus. He is wealthy (as all the senators were and are), intellectual, and well-read. When he shows up to the gladiator games, one of the other senators is surprised that he would show up to see the “mob.” “I never pretended to be a man of the people,” says Gracchus, “I do strive to be a man for the people.” In the Senate we see him discussing minutia such as how to fix the water supply and ward off a growing plague. He isn’t talking about grandiose ideas. He is an Edmund Burke politician, the intellectual father of conservatism. He has a pragmatic, gradual change, virtue to him. He is not pretentious, but straightforward and pragmatic. Ironically this is the opposite of all Hollywood stands for, which is why it is not often glorified.

Gracchus, the "good" politician (as if that existed).

In what Gracchus calls a “brilliant” move, Commodus brings back the gladiator games (his father had ended them for moral reasons). Gracchus doesn’t think the action is good or right, just politically brilliant. He knows how people think. The people are losing what little political control they have, so Commodus says, “here is some entertainment,” and everyone cheers. Is this any different than today? We all know we essentially have no political voice, and we all know the government is going to hell in hand basket, and the debt is a mess, and people are dying because of our facetious wars. And what do we do? We wonder what the last thing Miley Cyrus did at her concert. We get together and drink beer and watch some guys run into each other gladiator-like in stadiums modeled after the very coliseum where the gladiator games were held. Have we really advanced that much? We still fall for this stupid gag. Throw some games and put out some celebrity, and BAM they don’t even care or notice that we are financially raping them and they can do nothing about it.

It is also interesting that at the beginning of one of the games people go around the stadium throwing out bread; loafs of bread for all to share, a gift from the emperor. Well how about that for original? Using food and money as a way to buy popularity. This is of course exactly what politicians continue to do. Promise benefits and a constant stream of free food and goodies so that people will show up and vote for them. Humans have changed little since the days of Rome.

Throughout the movie we see poor Commodus in a desperate attempt to gather the love of the crowd. He thinks he must be everything and everyone must care about him. This narcissistic megalomania is what makes politicians. It is not about helping people or changing the world. They are up there searching for the praise and love to fill the void they cannot fill in their lives. Every vote they receive is one more badge on their ego to cover their empty souls. Look at politicians: a group of people who cheat on their wives and steel from the public purse to enforce their vision on the world. They are up their building their Utopia for us as if we did not know how to live our own lives and we need their superior knowledge on every subject imaginable to guide us. Nothing short of complete narcissistic megalomania leads you to that. Notice that there are two “i’s” in narcissist, and three “i’s” in politician.

In a vain attempt to gain approval of the crowd, Commodus brings back the gladiator games. 

In fact, the reason we like completely evil politicians and villains in our movies is because they make our sick system, our corrupted and evil leaders, seem less evil by comparison. This is why we like the Hunger Games and movies with emperors that kill their father. We can suddenly feel comforted that though our “leaders” lie to us, steal from us, start frivolous wars, sell off our children’s futures to foreign bankers, arrest people for carrying the wrong forms of vegetation in their pockets, and just about every other evil imaginable, at least they are not killing their own fathers. At least we are not that bad.

After being a movie that has so ingeniously and beautifully opened up our minds to truth, the movie ends with what I call the great myth. The movie shows evil after evil of political power, shows the horrific effects of violence and war, and then at the end, says that the good guy wins and he wins by using violence. This is the great myth that so many movies disseminate in the minds of people. Our minds for some reason identify it. We want the good guy to rise up and kill the bad guy and make everything right. We want the white knight to save the day. This is of course why society, keeps trying to use this same solution over and over again. We cannot see that this “solution” is the very cause of the problems in the first place.

Violence cannot solve the problems violence creates. I don’t know when Hollywood and society will catch on to this one, but that is the great myth. I will rewrite this statement in a few other ways that will maybe relate to leftists and rightists. All these statements are forms of the same thing: War cannot solve the problems war creates. Government cannot solve the problems government creates, Abuse cannot solve the problems abuse creates, rape cannot solve the problems rape creates. Take any one of those statements that resonates with you and simply universalize it. War is violence, and violence can’t solve violence because war cannot solve war. Government is violence, rape is violence, abuse is violence. All these things are different form of the same thing: violent and coercive force over people. For some reason we keep thinking some Maximus will come in and kill the emperor and make everything right. We think some Hero will ride to victory and kill all these violent oppressors. Guess what? It is never going to happen. You cannot play with evil at its own game and win. You can’t expect to walk onto a basketball court with Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Karl Malone and expect to come out as the winner. If you attempt to take down tyrants with violence, one of two things will happen: you will lose and get brutally killed either physically or emotionally, or you will become an even more horrible tyrant than the one you are trying to take down. This is a game you cannot win. The only way to win is to not play.

The Hollywood myth: being able to end violence with more violence. 

Stop waiting for Maximus. Be a hero today. Not with guns or violence. Guns and violence just create more guns and violence. The only solution is to first eliminate the desire for violence in us and spread love to others. We first must fix our homes before we can fix the world. Until we love our children and our wives and our husbands, we cannot spread love to others. We cannot expect to end war and end violence against other races and cultures when we cannot even love our very own children and neighbors. We cannot expect to expand tolerance of other world views when we do not even allow our children to view the world differently than we do. Until each child wakes up every day confident the he is loved regardless of his ideas. Until each child wakes up confident there are people around him protecting him, until that day comes, we have not seen the end of war. For war begins, and ends, in the home.

Not on historicity: Aurelius really did have a son named Commodus who succeeded him as emperor. Also it is generally considered that Aurelius was a "good" emperor and his son was a complete narcissistic failure.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that Aurelius appointed someone else besides his son to be emperor, though it has been speculated. Aurelius died of the plague, and was not assassinated, and his son had already been serving as emperor for multiple years. Furthermore Commodus ruled for 12 years, not just a short while as depicted. Furthermore Rome never returned to a Republic, as the movie suggests would happen. On an interesting note, Commodus was killed by a fighter, a wrestler not a gladiator, whose name was Narcissus.

The Hunger Games' Deeper Layer

The Hunger Games has captivated readers and audiences alike over the past years since its release. It has sold over a million copies and pulling in almost 700 million at the international box office. It is easy to guess why. The book is a fun and full of non-stop excitement. The read is well-paced and keeps you on edge. Love, romantic conflict, violence, beauty, sex, nostalgia, the book has it all. Here at The Anarchist Review the question we put forward to the reader is what does The Hunger Games mean to our society? That is a question we attempt to answer. (Note: this is a review of  The Hunger Games book not its sequels or the movie.)

There is no shortage of doom porn floating around libertarian circles. The Hunger Games feels like it could fit in nicely next to 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World  for a perfect libertarian doom salad. The common theme of such libertarian reviewers is that our future is held in these books unless we change something. 

Indeed, there are many parallels between Panem and our current situation, but first for the benefit of the .1% of the population who has not seen or read The Hunger Games let me give a recap of the scenario.  A country called Panem in North America is divided into 12 districts and the Capitol. Each district specializes in producing some item, most of which goes to the Capitol. The districts are varying in wealth, but are mostly poor. The closer the connections one has to the capital, the wealthier. The protagonist is from the coal-producing District 12 which is located in current Appalachia.  The Capitol is in the Rockies (Salt Lake City?).  The Capitol rules the citizenry with an iron fist. To further demonstrate its power over the districts and avoid rebellion, once a year they hold the Hunger Games. Basically two people (a boy and a girl) between the ages 12 and 18 are chosen from each district to battle to the death for the entertainment of the Capitol.  Every year 24 kids are thrown together and only one survives, the Victor, who is lavished with wealth and fame. Obviously going to the games is a death sentence, so it is dreaded in the districts.

As of now Washington D.C. does not hold gladiator type games between teenagers from the different states. Also, D.C. is much closer to Appalachia than to the Rockies. So not a perfect fit, however there are some very relevant comparisons between The Hunger Games and today’s society.

In Panem your wealth is tied not to your work ethic or good ideas, but rather where you were born, or rather how close to the capitol you were born. The Capitol controls who is wealthy, who succeeds, who is poor and who fails. With federal spending exceeding three trillion dollars, and billions more handed out to Wall-Street via QE and other monetary trickery of the Federal Reserve, the Panem system is not that much different than our own.  Maybe you are laughing at me saying this is a ridiculous comparison. But is it?

The U.S. government spends 40% of GDP. That means if you take everything that all 300 million people make, the government spends 40% of it. That is a load of money. Google had revenues of 15.7 billion last year, Wal-Mart did 469 billion. The U.S Government spent 3,455 billion dollars in 2013. That means the spending power of the largest company in the world was less than half, less than a seventh of what the U.S government unleashes in terms of spending power. Google, the supposed king of the internet can only unleash 0.5 % of what the Federal government can. Companies make or sell products that we choose to use. The U.S. government simply pulls the money out of our paychecks without permission. Imagine how much you can influence who is wealthy and who is poor when you can outspend any other single entity by seven times? Also when you are able to take arbitrary amounts of money from people’s pocket books and distribute it to whoever you wish?

The unfortunate reality is that so much of success is not based on a company’s ability to provide a good or cheap product. It is based on the company’s ability to get on the government’s good side. Look at the Sugar industry in the United States. In 2013 The Florida Sugar Cane League, the American Sugar Alliance, and American Crystal sugar spent over 3.5 million dollars in lobbying. As a result Sugar in the United States has a large protective tariff and over the past 40 years has cost as much as double in the U.S. as opposed to outside it. Every regular person in the United States is essentially paying for politicians to get wined and dined by the Sugar Lobby. They pay in higher sugar prices, increasing the price of all their food and increasing the wealth of lobbyists, politicians, and Sugar corporations.

Look at the successful business in the world. Look what industries are hiring and giving big bonuses to their CEOs? Go to job fair. What businesses are there? If it is a technical/engineering job fair I can almost guarantee who you will see: government supported monopolies (i.e. utilities) the government (bureau of land/water management), and government defense contractors (Boeing and Lockheed Martin). Why is that? It is because they have a steady stream of “guaranteed” dollars flowing in from the Capitol. 625 Billion dollars were spent last year alone on building the war machine. That is 625 billion dollars taken out of people’s pockets, people that actually produce something people use, like computers and software and hotels and houses, in order to pay for bombs and a bunch of engineers to sit around and make death machines.  If they produce a product that no person would ever buy, it matters not. The money is there.

Go to none-engineering career fair. There will be a large swab of companies from education, healthcare, and finance. Three industries which are heavily regulated and subsidized by federal and state governments. Once again the government has chosen who succeeds and who fails. 

In The Hunger Games, the people in the Capitol do not work at all; they spend all their time on frivolous activities. The people in the Districts have incredibly strict laws that they cannot leave their areas, and barely have enough food to live.

What about here? For the most part, the capitol is not filled with people who spend their time dying their hair other colors and getting plastic surgery. Washington D.C I have heard actually has a pretty hard working atmosphere; everyone is a busybody trying to get things done. Which is scary.  However, what do they really accomplish? They write words on a piece of paper. They make laws. The tell people well where to move their guns. They produce nothing. They produce nothing that people can use. Their paper-passing is just as frivolous as the lives of the hair and prep team from the Hunger Games. The protagonist says this of them “It’s funny, because even though they’re rattling on about the Games, it’s all about where they were or what they were doing or how they felt when a specific event occurred. ‘I was still in bed!’ ‘I had just had my eyebrows dyed!’ ‘I swear I nearly fainted!’ Everything is about them, not the dying boys and girls in the arena.” 

Is it too much of a stretch to assume that politicians may be just or even more callous than these hair-dressers? They get their money by looking good and sounding nice and not offending people. They get their money by getting donations from wealthy people in trade for special privileges that hurt everyone else. They send thousands of men and women to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and they sleep peacefully at night in their suburban homes paid for by the labor of productive Americans. They argue about laws and send papers around from one office to another while men are dying because of their actions. Is this any less frivolous, any less callous than the speech of the hair dressers?

True, we do not have most the country working to pay for the lavish lifestyle for the politically connected, except we do. We do not callously ignore the deaths of people who die in the name of the country, yet we do. Since 2004, when drone attacks begin, as many as 951 civilians, which includes 200 children, have been killed by drones in Pakistan alone. This does not include the wedding guests who died in Yemen and other deaths around the world

Are we that far from The Hunger Games? Is our society really that much different than the one we look upon with such abhorrence? We let over 4,000 of our own die in Iraq so we could be unified and patriotic. Are we that much different than a society that lets 24 of its own fight to the death to maintain peace and order in society? Is this not exactly what the deaths of all our military is all about? That is why we have parades and ceremonies for the survivors, for the Victors if you will. Is there a difference?

Hopefully by now the reader is questioning if we are not exactly who the Hunger Games is talking about. You may be convinced that The Hunger Games is the day after tomorrow for America. Well I hate to burst your doomsday bubble, but it is not. Despite my radical political opinions, I affirm that this will never happen. There will be no Hunger Games here. Ever. How can I say that? What evidence is there?

We are not at the base of state power, we are at the pinnacle of it. This three-thousand year-old paradigm of the state is fading with Slavery and other barbaric institutions of the past. Will the powers that be relinquish voluntarily? No, of course not. Evil will not relent. Evil people will hold on with all they have to the source of power and livelihood. The state has created millions of dependents. This is of course to the state’s advantage because it means millions are interested in keeping it alive and well. But in the end it cannot. The state is simply inefficient. Violence and evil do not help people, do not produce good results, and do not produce anything of value. The state cannot compete with ingenious and innovation and entrepreneurship. It just cannot. Despite all the taxes, all the regulation and other violent actions the state will raise against free people attempting to serve others, but in the end it will be to no avail. The progress of man cannot be stopped.

Generally the villain is not taken down by the good guy, the villain is taken down through his (or her) own vanity, pride, irrationality, lust for power, or whatever it be. His own arbitrary authority is what will implode and destroy the bad guy. And so it will be with the state. Technology will get better so that free-seeking people will be better able to escape the state. Bitcoin. Sea-steading. The internet. All sorts of things will help to set us free. And the state will be left alone, and all the evil it harbors, crumbling under its own complete inefficiency. There is no stopping the revolution. There is no stopping the revolution.

In these hunger games it will only be evil that will be starving. And I can’t wait.

Let the games begin. 

Les Miserables' Deeper Layer

Can you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men, that is the music of a people who will not be slaves again!  - From Can You Hear the People Sing in Les Miserables

Here they talked of revolution

Here it was they lit the flame

Here they sang about tomorrow

And tomorrow never came

Oh my friends, my friends, don’t ask me

What your sacrifice was for

Empty chairs and empty tables

Where my friends will sing no more

-From Empty Chairs and Empty Tables in Les Miserables

Les Miserables is a fantastic tale of love and loss, justice and mercy, revolution and power. It has enchanted and inspired millions. The interplay of personal stories interwoven into the grand story of the failed French Revolution of 1832 is fantastic. There are so many applicable topics The Anarchist Review could cover in this story: religious freedom versus political freedom or Justice versus mercy, but I have chosen the topic of revolution.

Multiple questions are brought up by this tale: What is Revolution? Who starts revolutions? What is Revolution good for?

A little background on Victor Hugo, the author, and why he wrote about this. Hugo personally witnessed some of the proceedings of the 1832 revolution or June Uprising as it is referred to. As in the play/book/movie, the uprising lasted only two days: from June 5 to June 6. It was in fact a pretty minor blurb, especially considering the large number of uprisings and revolutions that France has been through. If it were not for Victor Hugo this uprising of 3,000 people, would have faded into the annals of history known by only to a few erudite historians. 

Thanks to Hugo, however it is one of the most well-known events in history. Hugo himself was a Republican, and strongly sided with the republican revolutionaries.

Now to the tale of revolution. During the song Red and Black, Enjolras, the revolutionary leader, asks if revolution is “simply a game for rich young boys to play?” He says (or rather sings) this at the ABC pub where wealthy middle-class men come to discuss politics. Most are young, some are sons of aristocrats. These young men feel they are liberating the poor from oppression and “They will come one and all. They will come one and all” to support them in their just cause. However, their prediction is fatally wrong.

Revolution is often assumed to start with poor disgruntled workers who rise up to shake off the shackles of their oppressive governments. Yet Les Miserables is saying the opposite, that it is a bunch of wealthy middle class men who get angry and try to stir up the masses. 

So what is the revolutionary story? As one who has considered tattooing, “Liberty or Death” across his back, it would be nice to sympathize with revolutionaries. Perhaps, however, the story of Les Miserables has lessons, particularly for young fire-brands like me.

So without further ado, The Anarchist Review takes a quick plunge into the history of revolutions to uncover the truth.

Revolutions generally go through three stages, the fall of the old regime and rise of a moderate regime based on the old paradigm just adjusted, rise of a radical (and often tyrannical) government, and a return to moderate in the so-called Thermidorian reaction. Crane Brinton notably analyzed this in his book The Anatomy of Revolution. Though it is not a perfect fit for all revolutions, many of the large revolutions in history have followed this pattern, most notably the English, the French, and the Russian.

Brinton points out that it is not the super poor who start revolutions. Genuine lower-class revolutions are almost non-existent with the notable exception of Haiti’s slave revolution. The revolutionaries are generally idealistic middle-class white guys, “born of hope,” as Brinton puts it.

In the first stage, the moderate stage, the relatively unorganized middle-class men who have gained support of the lower-classes often because of extreme conditions are able to take down the first regime. This is the exciting stage where the lower-classes are involved. They are not the instigators, but they jump on the cause, mostly because they assume things cannot get worse than the status quo.  This group often is unorganized and lacking a strong leader, they often do not want to completely oust the former government as much as they simply want to change it. In France this meant forming a constitutional monarchy. They wanted to keep the king, just add restraints and grant more power to the middle-class. After all it is a middle-class revolution, the poor are involved in creating chaos, but when the tables come out and negotiation begins, they are not present.

The next stage is where an organized radical group with a strong leader sweeps in and takes control. In England it was Oliver Cromwell, in France, Robespierre, in Russia, Lenin.  Are these men from humble backgrounds who strive to help their fellow poor brothers? Let us have a look:

Oliver Cromwell: He was born into the middle-gentry, i.e. upper-middle class. He was a land-owner and politician for most of his life. Not exactly what we would consider a “worker.”

Robespierre: A politician and lawyer descended from lawyers. Robespierre, despite being from a somewhat troubled home (born out of wed-lock), he was just about as middle-class and white-collar as they come.

Some revolutionary spirit during Robespierre's Reign of Terror

Lenin: He was born to nobility. Yes, you read that right, Lenin, the Marxist radical of Russia was born into a noble family. It is not true that his parents were not born noble, however they were born rich. Before Lenin was born they were basically awarded a title and became “hereditary nobility.” Lenin, like so many Marxists, knew more about the plight of finding a good chef then they did about the plight of workers.

This is not meant to be an exposé or surprising revelation. These men are not really considered great men of history. All three were at the helms of extremely violent and bloody regimes. But they fit the bill of the radical revolutionaries of the world. Men with great idealistic visions which when attempted to put into practice end up killing loads of people. For example, Robespierre’s short rule in France led to over 40,000 deaths.

After the radical stage there is a return to a moderate stage, and often, in the long run a return to the former government. In France and England a King was returned to the throne (albeit with constitutional restraints), and Russia, well Russia still has the sort of strong dictatorial leaders it has head since the time of the Russian empire.

Revolutions results? Day to day life of workers ends up being basically the same. Religions and habits remain unchanged. As Brinton says, “[The revolutions’] results look rather petty as measured by the brotherhood of man and the achievement of justice on this earth. The blood of the martyrs seems hardly necessary to establish decimal coinage." Basically in the end the revolutions are, like most wars, fights between rich people about who can exploit who, with the lives of poor people often being tossed around as collateral. A few of the rich kids playing the revolutionary game die as symbols, but most of the blood shed is the blood of workers whom the revolution is supposed to benefit. The Reign of Terror in France which was meant to uproot all royalist support, killed far more people from the lower classes then it did nobility or royals. 

From looking back at history it seems Victor Hugo had revolutions about right. One of two things happens. The middle-class revolution gets support from the lower-classes and causes chaos and uprising. The government changes three or four times and ends up basically how it started. The other possible scenario is the one told by Hugo. The lower-classes do not come to support the cause because of misjudgment of how bad their plight actually or unwillingness to die for the cause. In either case if you start the revolution you probably end up dead with your friends wondering what your sacrifice was for.

Here at The Anarchist Review we have plenty of revolutionary blood. Those that know me know I am anti-establishment and idealist. Lots of people probably assume I would be the first one running down the street waving a Gadsden flag to start the next American revolution.

However, I have to side with history. Revolution in the end is a game for rich white boys to play which almost always ends in meaningless violence. It is a bunch of rich kids who look at the lower-classes and say, “I know what they need.” When in reality they care more about aggrandizing themselves, then helping the poor. They have grandiose ideas not rooted in reality. They claim to fight for liberty when in the reality they are seeking power.  Outside of the American Revolution, it is difficult/impossible to find a revolution which could be remotely described as “successful.”

Despite all my fiery gusto for change and revolution, I am afraid it is the slow gradual changes that win out. Why? Because people are gradual changers, society changes gradually. And while government is not society (a common error); government, at least partially, reflects society. Ultimately government only changes because it has to. Society changes government, it is impossible to do it the other way around. People, not power, rule the world. So despite my radical leanings and position, I feel I must give deference to that great conservative thinker Edmund Burke who predicted the French Revolution spiraling out of control.

“It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.” – Edmund Burke

My suggestion for young men like me who so greatly yearn for change in the world is not to turn to guns, violence, and revolution, but rather to reason and technology, thinking and persuasion, that is how we will win the war.

Do not go start political revolution. Stay home, get married, have children, raise them peacefully, write a book, and live another day.

 If we go the path of revolution we will end up like those of Les Miserables, with “empty chairs and empty tables, where [our] friends will sit no more.”